“Prohibition is based on the false premises that standard magazines have no legitimate uses, and that their elimination has no effect on lawful self-defense,” Kopel writes. “Sheriffs and deputies possess standard capacity magazines…for the same reason that law-abiding citizens should: they are best for lawful defense of self and others. When defenders have less reserve ammunition, they fire fewer shots. This increases the danger that the criminal(s) will injure the victim.”
UPDATE: The amicus brief that was filed incorrectly omitted the names of Sheriffs Lou Vallario from Garfield County and Shawn Mobley from Otero County. The amici have filed a motion with the Colorado Supreme Court to correct the omission. The article has been updated accordingly.
DENVER–Thirty-two Colorado Sheriffs joined The Colorado Law Enforcement Firearms Instructors Association and the Independence Institute* in filing an amicus curiae (friend of the court) brief with the Colorado Supreme Court opposing Colorado’s firearms magazine ban on Monday.
The brief, written by Independence Institute Research Director and Denver University law professor David Kopel, provides the Court with the concerns of county sheriffs with respect to the effects of the magazine ban on both law enforcement officers as well as on the ability of citizens to defend themselves using firearms.
The original case was brought in Denver District Court in Sept. 2013 by Rocky Mountain Gun Owners and the National Association for Gun Rights, among other plaintiffs, challenging the constitutionality of the ban.
The complaint was thrown out by the trial court, but the Colorado Court of Appeals found that the plaintiffs’ argument that the law, House Bill 13-1224, banning magazines that can hold more than 15 rounds, violated the Colorado Constitution was improperly dismissed. The case was remanded to the District Court for further consideration.
by Scott Weiser
